In re Anthony James, Relator Appeal from ... of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-17-00085-CV ________________________ IN RE ANTHONY JAMES, RELATOR Original Proceeding Arising From Proceedings Before the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-411,486-B; Honorable John “Trey” J. McClendon III, Presiding April 12, 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Relator, Anthony James, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable John “Trey” J. McClendon III to consider various motions attached to a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus filed January 5, 2016.1 Specifically, those motions include (1) two separate Motions for Appointment of Counsel for Habeas Corpus, (2) Motion for New Trial, (3) Motion to Re-sentence, and (4) Motion 1 Relator has two prior mandamus proceedings involving these same motions. See In re James, No. 07-16-00113-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 9560 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 29, 2016, orig. proceeding); In re James, No. 07-16-00302-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3026 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 23, 2016, orig. proceeding). for Reformation of Judgment/Sentence. Relator complains that more than enough time has lapsed for the convicting court to consider his motions. In his petition for writ of mandamus, Relator acknowledges that the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals received his application for a writ of habeas corpus with his motions attached thereto in January 2016. Included with his petition is an unsigned copy of proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wherein the State recommends dismissal of Relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. On February 10, 2016, without written order, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 4, pertaining to subsequent applications for habeas relief. However, Relator does not acknowledge or mention the dismissal in his quest for mandamus relief. This court surmises that Relator may not have received the postcard notice of the dismissal and has continued to pursue this matter for over a year. A copy of the postcard notice is provided below: FILE COPY OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 2/10/2016 JAMES, ANTHONY DARRELL AKA JAMES, ANTHONY DONNELL Tr. Ct. No. 2006-411,486-B WR-25,363-03 The Court has dismissed without written order this subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 11.07, Sec. 4(a)-(c). Abel Acosta, Clerk ANTHONY DARRELL JAMES MICHAEL UNIT - TDC #427293 P. O. BOX 4500 TENNESSEE COLONY, TX 75886 2 MANDAMUS STANDARD OF REVIEW Mandamus relief is extraordinary. In re Braswell, 310 S.W.3d 165, 166 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding)). “Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding)). To show entitlement to mandamus relief, a relator must satisfy three requirements: (1) a legal duty to perform; (2) a demand for performance; and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979). ANALYSIS Relator has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. His application for a writ of a habeas corpus, which included the motions he complains of, was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals on February 10, 2016. Consequently, the proceeding is not pending in the trial court and there is no controversy before it that might entitle Relator to mandamus relief. CONCLUSION We conclude Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is moot. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
